The Subversion of Meaning in Hue De Rotelande's Ipomedon
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
The Subversion of Meaning in Hue de Rotelande's Ipomedon Penny Eley University of Sheffield The prologue to Hue de Rotelande's [pomedon i (c. 1180) places the story of the eponymous hero squarely in the tradition of the romans d' anciquite, ftrstly by invoking 'les aventures/ Ke avyndrent a l' ancien tens' (II. 4-5), and secondly by presenting the text as a translation from Latin into the vernacular (II. 20-32). Like the romances of TMbes and Troie, and like other works which respond directly to them, such as the Lais of Marie de France and the anonymous romance Partonopeus de Blois, [pomedon begins with an invitation to the audience/reader to construct meaning from the narrative which is to follow: 'Qui a hons countes voet entendre) Sovent il poet grans biens aprendre' (II. 1-2).' Moreover, an implicit contrast is established between stories of the ancient world and works of pure entertainment, through the linking of the paired terms enveiseUres and aventures with the binary oppositionJolie/sens: Par escuter enveisetires Et retrere les aventures Ke avyndrent a I'ancien tens, Poet I' en oyr folie e sens. Or lessums la folie ester Kar de sens fet mult bien parler. (3-8) The text clearly identifies itself with the second in each pair of terms, and by the use of the polyvalent term sens appears to promise its readers not only a window on the wisdom of the ancients but also meaning, or a 'message' of its own. It is hardly surprising, then, that modem critics have responded to this invitation to construct meaning by proposing a variety of interpretations of the work. Before the publication of Holden's edition, a number of scholars had proposed serious readings of the text, seeing it either as a tale of protracted atonement for neglect of chivalric prowess,3 or, conversely, 98 Penny Eley a critique of excessive observance of knightly conventions' Holden shifted the focus towards the burlesque elements in the text, and saw it as essentially parodic, its sens being little more than the comic debunking of literary conventions.' For bim, one of the ballmarks of Ipomedon was the arbitrariness of its attacks on the sacred cows of romance writing: 'La seule intention systematique et tant soit peu sentie qu'on puisse y deceler est celie de sa!iriser la femme' (p. 55). The publication of the new edition provided the impetus for several more studies whicb all focused to a greater or lesser degree on the interpretative challenge posed by Hue's complex mode of composition. Micbel Stanesco attempted to make sense of the bero's contradictory bebaviour by attributing it to the interference of mythical or magical modes of narration witb romance. 6 Susan Crane's fine study drew attention to the coexistence of paradoxical elements in the story, and gave due weigbt to 'humour and irony, but nonetheless saw the author as having a 'serious commitment to his material' 7 A similar 'double reading' approach was adopted by William Calin, wbo saw Ipomedon as simultaneously subverting and validating the romance enterprise' Roberta Krueger noted the existence of 'the implied reader awaiting the disclosure of the story's sens and the clever narrator who refuses to reveal it', while concluding that part, at least, of that sens lay in a demonstration of 'male ingenuity at the expense of women'.9 Despite their incisive analyses of the poem and appreciation of Hue's use of paradox and contradiction, Crane, Calin and Krueger still implicitly accept the prologue's suggestion that there is a sens to be recovered from the story: the text simply requires clever readers to match its clever narrator and uncover what is being concealed. The contention here will be, on the other hand, that Ipomedon is a text which deliberately sets out to make it impossible for the reader to constrnct meaning: its sens is the willed absence of sens lO The process of thwarting our attempts to respond to the prologue's invitation is certainly comic and subversive, as Holden argues, but it is far from being arbitrary. What we experience as readers of this text is the systematic blocking of every avenue of interpretation by the sustained marshalling of red herrings, internal contradictions, and logical conundrums. Red herrings are found from the opening scenes of the poem onwards. When the hero decides to leave his father's court in order to broaden his education, the audience is encouraged to expect serious opposition to the plan from king Hermogenes. Ipomedon explains to · Subversion of Meaning in lpomedon 99 his tutor Tholomeu that his father loves him so much that he would never give him leave to go, no matter who might make the request on his behalf. The young man even pictures himself having to creep away under cover of darkness in order to fulfil his dream (ll. 253-66). The audience is thus led to anticipate an early test for the hero, and awaits the narration of a scene in which Ipomedon either defies his father or succeeds against the odds in winning him round. In the event, we get neither: Tholomeu puts the plan to the king, who takes only one octosyllable to give his consent: Tholomeu ne s'est pas targie, AI roi vint si Ii ad prie, La re·igne tut ensement; Ly rois I'otrie bonement; . A la reyne mut pesa, Mout a envis luy graanta Ke sis flZ detist esloignier; EI n'ot for Iy sul, si rot cher. (297-304) The opposition, such as it is, comes from a different quarter, but even the queen is rapidly persuaded to agree. Her reluctance is understandable, given the unambiguous statement in line 304 that Ipomedon was her only child. It is more than disconcerting, then, to learn during the queen's deathbed conversation with the hero some 1400 lines later that she has another son, who will be able to recognise his half-brother by means of a ring which she presents to the latter.ll The extreme compression of this scene - the existence of the other son and the fact that no-one else knows about him are revealed in three lines - suggests something more than conventional romance mystification. The narrator seems to be testing to the limit the reader's willingness to suspend disbelief in order to be entertained. Who is this child's father? How can the queen have concealed his existence from Hermogenes and the rest of his court? Why should she have wanted 10 do so? How can she have lost touch with her son for so long? Why does she not tell Ipomedon his name? Why does he not ask? No answers to these questions are given or even suggested. The reader who agrees to go along with the text's extreme withholding of information does so on the implicit understanding that all will be revealed at a later stage in the narrative. Hue's narrator, however, fails to honour his side of the 100 Penny Eley contract. When Jpomedon is finally reunited with his half-brother, the audience learns nothing that they have not already been told or prompted to work out for themselves. 12 During the climactic exchange between the hero and Capaneus after the latter has recognised the ring on the hero's finger (II. 10214-86), Ipomedon re-tells his life story, while Capaneus simply declares that they are brothers; the only other information he provides about his past is precisely the one thing we already know: [... J nus eimes freres, Mes nus etimes divers peres, Mes nus une mere avlon. (10283-85) Besides failing to answer the questions raised in the deathbed scene, this episode also raises another. Given that Ipomedon had agreed to his mother's request to wear the ring at all times, and given that he and Capaneus had become close companions during the time he spent at Meleager's court as the dru La reine, how was it that Capaneus had failed to notice the ring when they sat at table together and drank from the same cup (II. 2937-52), but managed to recognise it in the heat of battle when he and his friend were engaged in mortal combat? The situation is so improbable that the only possible answer to the question is 'Because the poet says so'. If Capaneus, as a reader of annular signs, can be seen as a figure of the text's own readers, then the implication is that we, like him, are the narrator's puppets, whose responses he will manipulate as he sees fit, with as little regard for our autonomy as he has for vraisembLance .IJ This suggests a different perspective on the sense of complicity between author-narrator and audience which a number of critics have seen as a distinctive fearure of the textl4 The frequent narratorial interventions and topical asides appear to be inviting the audience to join in the game of laughing at the hapless victims qf the hero's multiple disguises. The example of Capaneus and the ring indicates, however, that that sense of complicity may simply be the bait with which the text lures us into participating in a game which is being played at our own expense. The ultimate victims are the audience, who are here asked to suspend disbelief until such time as the narrator decides to let them glimpse a truth which has been staring them in the face all along. The setting of false trails, littered with unanswered questions, is only one tactic within the overall strategy of blocking avenues of ·Subversion of Meaning in /pomedon 101 interpretation 15 Another is the use of contradictions.